The Instigator
thegodhand
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wamba
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
wamba
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,747 times Debate No: 14167
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

thegodhand

Pro

I know. I know. The Internet is the home of nerdiness, and some nerds (like, admittedly, me) are stubborn and unmoving in their self-righteous beliefs. The most dangerous thing a nerd can possibly do is attack a fellow nerd's favorite science fiction show.

But even though I put my life on the line, I will go on.

Burden Of Proof-

I must convince the opposition (or at least the voters) that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars.

Argument-

A1. Star Trek has more content in it than Star Wars. There are six Star Wars movies at the moment. The average movie is 90 minutes, so that will be my BOP source. 90 multiplied by 6 is 540. 9 hours of Star Wars movies. Even if each movie were 10 hours long, it couldn't match Star Trek's overall amount of content.

The Original Series contains 69 episodes, rounded to 70. Since advertising at the time was significantly less than it is today, 1 hour shows were 55, not 44, minutes. 70 multiplied by 55 is 3850 minutes. This amounts to almost 64 and 1/6 hours of Star Trek on the original series alone. Even counting Ewoks, Droids, and both Clone Wars, Star Wars cannot come close to the combined length of all the episodes. The Trek movies add another 20 hours or so to the equation as well.

Also, an argument could be made for the Star Wars books. I say this- you are clearly uneducated about the sheer number of Star Trek books staring out at you from shelves on the local bookstore.

A2. Star Trek is more dramatic.

While blaster fire and laser cannons can be condensed into 6 movies, drama can be masterfully woven through installments that can last for massive lengths of time. Drama seems to be a vital part of acting. For some reason, watching characters interact in allegorical remakes of our daily lives is... inspiring. Perhaps watching them, we gain a better understanding of our own life. Or we feel better knowing that others suffer the same way we do.

What would you do if contacted by Darth Vader?

Star Wars would go on to the fighting.
Star Trek would chat up Vader. After we see the awkward conversation between Good and Evil, we then get action. See A3.

Star Wars, for what little drama it has, is choppily woven into a series of 6 movies that cannot compete with the sheer amount of time Star Trek is allocated to develop intricate storylines that span hours of powerful drama. See above.

A3. Star Trek also has action.

A specific example of this that comes to mind if the Battle of Wolf 359 in "The Best Of Both Worlds." (Spoilers Ahoy) In The Best Of Both Worlds, Captain Picard is abducted by the "Borg", an alien race bent of absorbing other cultures and taking their technology by means of invasion and the painful process of having your limbs amputated and replaced by "efficient" Tritanium or something that looks like black steel. They excuse this as "The Borg are the ultimate form of life. The Collective is awesome." Picard develops a hate for the Borg like no one else can after he is freed.
So how do you free him?

First you have an awesome, ludicrously one-sided battle where a Borg battleship single-handedly destroys every ship in the fleet except the Enterprise.

I skipped over this episode when I first saw it. Then I realized that this is the epitome of Trek. It has drama (Picard's newfound hate for the Borg) and action (the Battle of Wolf 359.) Clearly, this series also has plenty of time for action-packed scenes. And they come often, especially in the Dominion War story arc for the last half of Deep Space Nine.

I anxiously await the arrival of a Star Wars fan willing to debate me. Try to remain civilized, as their are far too many incoherent nerds who put up no fight. If you can remain civilized during this hopefully heated debate, I will be happy to comply.

-The Godhand
wamba

Con

R1. Content =/= Quality

Content =/= Quality

1000 hours of mediocrity =/= 12 hours of brilliance

R2-D2. Value = Quality/Content

Therefore to judge both things equally we must divide out time to see which is the best per hour rather than by judging something that tediously drags the viewer through hours of boring crap to spill out an hour of drama once every thousandth hour.

R3. As said above it's the amount of action on average that counts. Star wars by common consensus has more.

A1. Star Wars is found on the list of best films ever created, star trek is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

A2. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour

A3. Star Wars fans are less geeky and more attractive evidenced by the following scientific test:

I googled the phrase "star wars fans"

These two images appeared first:

http://www.tshirtwatch.com...
http://www.realbollywood.com...

I googled the phrase "star trek fans"

http://www.mtv.com...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.eatliver.com...

I googled the phrase "trekkies"
http://www.stomptokyo.com...
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

It should be clear what series is the real winner. Vote con.
Debate Round No. 1
thegodhand

Pro

Thanks for the debate,

First of all, in your equations (1000 hrs mediocrity<12 hours of brilliance) you give no evidence to support your claims. You claim Star Wars is superior to Star Wars, yet you do not support your claims directly to this equation. You did not even point out one powerful, moving, action-packed scene that could be debated on how good it actually is.

R2-D2. Value=Quality/Content

This equation can be proven if values are assigned to Q and C. However, no values were given for Q or C. Thus, this is an unprovable equation.

You give no explanation, subtype, or even archetype of what makes Star Wars better. You simply state that Star Wars is better, without pointing out a scene that makes Star Wars the superior show.

R3. As said above, it's the amount of action on average that counts. Star Wars, by common consensus, has more.

You are having your debate held up by the shoulders of the masses, rather than writing your own debate. While it is fine to post links if, for example, your argument is too long, you are simply attempting to prove your point by using the opinions of the masses, rather than your individuality as both a Debate.org member and as a human being.

A1. Star Wars is found on the list of best films ever created. Star Trek is not.

This is an invalid argument for two reasons. First, Star Wars had a more aggressive advertising campaign, and could therefore reach more homes. Thus, more critics could catch the news from the grapevine and flock to it, giving it high reviews just because they saw mind-altering propaganda. Most of these people have never seen Star Trek- thus, it is impossible to base an argument on what they liked more.

Second, you are once again holding your debate on the shoulders of others. Just because Gene Shalit or Roger Ebert say a movie is the best of the year doesn't mean it is. Movie reviews can help you decide what new blockbuster to buy when you can only have one, but don't let them write your opinions for you. Use you individuality to overcome the opinions of others. You are a human being. Please make your own argument.

A2. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour.

While I could agree with this statement if I chose to, the fact is that you put up a blank slate. You have not backed this up with any references, outlines, or even a link.

A3. Star Wars fans are less geeky.

Star Trek fans are more devout. Why?

Because the show is better, and they have an entire fictional universe for their minds to orbit, as opposed to two wars. Thus, they enjoy the show more and can enjoy pretending to be Data or Spock because they are well-defined characters that they are mimicking and not just a cardboard slope that you have not made an original argument to defend.

Con has made an argument that has nothing original to defend it and is backed by the opinions of far superior individuals. Vote PRO.

An ORIGINAL argument by The Godhand
wamba

Con

R-1

I do not have to prove that Star Wars is superior in order to disprove your assertion that Content =/= Quality and that Content =/= Value. You agree upon the equation thus your A1 is conceded.

R2-D2
"no values were given for Q or C. Thus, this is an unprovable equation."

I take it you really hated algebra class? There cannot be a numerical value for quality because quality is a preference. In this refutation I do not have to provide any values in order to establish an equation that equalizes the content in comparing the two shows. Thus your A2 is refuted.

R3

Pro has done the following:

1. Called my argument too long

2. Called my argument unoriginal

3. Insinuated my argument was inhuman

As he has devolved into ad hominems instead of refuting anything he has conceded this point.

A1. The pro has conceded this argument by not refuting it and instead saying it was invalid to argue about. However in a debate that has few facts to back it the minuscule amount of information that is available cannot be ignored.

The pro for some reason is attempting to invalidate the opinion of others to establish rank. However then with this criteria, the pro is invalidating the entire debate.

Let's face it people, perception is reality. People clearly perceive Star Wars to be greater.

Also note in this argument con devolved to ad hominems and insinuated I was again inhuman.

A2. I do not have the burden of proof. However it's common knowledge and thus why I do not have to provide evidence which is the reason you chose not to refute it with any facts.

A3. Pro has conceded this argument by not setting up an argument that Star Wars fans are less geeky. He has ignored the scientific test and has nothing to refute it.

He set up a straw man about "devoutness" Since he has not refuted it this argument also stands.

Why you should vote con:

1. Pro accepted the burden of proof and has proven nothing and all his arguments have been refuted

---> "I must convince the opposition (or at least the voters) that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars."

2. Pro has insulted con several times calling me "inhuman and unoriginal"

3. I have proven that star wars:

A. Star Wars is rated more highly by a summation of polls

B. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour

C. Have less geeky fans as proved by a scientific test

Vote for someone who HAS an argument and does not even need one as he does not have the burden of proof.
Debate Round No. 2
thegodhand

Pro

I forfeited my other debate to work on this. Thanks.

------------------
R1. I can agree on an equation's foundation. F=MxA is true. But what is the answer? Moreover, you fail to observe any of this.
------------------
R2. If you cannot provide values, no argument can be given. Since you can't give an argument, you are refuted.

-----------------
R3. I have not called your argument too long. The rest, you give no evidence that you were not inhuman and unoriginal.
-----------------
R31A/R31B.

A summation of polls is not evidence. It is the populace's opinion, not yours. Since you cannot give evidence to support that the populace is right, negated.

R31A2.
Oh yes, perception is reality. I put my hand on the stove. But I don't think it's hot. Thus, my hand is not burned (though it is.)

R31A3.

Is geeky bad? Geeky can be good... or bad. This would require you to put up an argument proving geekiness is bad.
Since a geek is by definition more intelligent, then geeks are the cornerstone of modern civilization.

Why You Should Vote Pro:

I. Con is relying on the masses for his argument.
A. Most of these people are superior individuals like Roger Ebert.
II. Con has bad grammar.
III. Has not proved geekiness is bad.
IV. Made a false statement. I never called his argument too long.
V. Is going to be ripped apart by Trek geeks anyway.

Vote Pro.
wamba

Con

If my opponent forfeited is other debate to work on this then he made a poor choice. Especially since his argument is weak and short.

R1. My opponent conceded this point based upon acceptance of the equation.

R2-D2. Why are you expecting numerical values for a non-numerical equation? I do not have to provide values in order to establish we are comparing average content.

R3. I'm clearly human and can post a picture of myself? I'm original because this argument is written by me and is not copyrighted.

"A summation of polls is not evidence. It is the populace's opinion, not yours. Since you cannot give evidence to support that the populace is right, negated."

Words and values are awarded by the masses. If everyone thinks you are ugly except for yourself, then you are ugly. As the definition of ugly is determined by everyoe

Pro has admitted all of the following:
1. We are determining the average content to determine which is better
2. Star Trek Fans are geeky
3. Most people prefer Star Wars
4. He has he burden of proof

Pro has proved:

Nothing. That's right. Pro has not proven the resolution for which he self admittedly has the burden of proof.

For these reasons you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
thegodhand

Pro

thegodhand forfeited this round.
wamba

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 4
thegodhand

Pro

Alright man. Time for the final battle.

==============================================================================

R1. I can say A=BC or X=YZ. This can be true. Or false. A=3= B=3xC=1 is true. A=38245= B=686xC=1000000 is false.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R2. Why am I? The world can be thought of as numbers. You are 98 years old. You weigh 400 pounds. You have 4 hairs on your head. Your computer has 4 KB of RAM. It has 1200 baud connection. The world is numbers. It's just what the numbers are that matters. 1=Good. 2=Bad. 3=Awesome. 4=Horrible. Logical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R31. I never said you didn't write your argument. You are using opinionated sources from someone other than yourself. This is like saying, "Hey, this movie is made by a director I hate and is 1 minute long and has 2 cast members but some guy on the street said it was awesome so it is." You cannot rely on sources other than factual sources to prove a point.
-----------
R32. Values from the masses? If you have an IQ of 150 and are in Mensa and have a 4.0 score from college, then you are stupid because two guys say so? I don't think so.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R41. You have yet to point out a scene from Star Wars that trumps Star Trek.
-----------
R42. Geeky? Geeks make the world go round. A geek made your computer. A geek made the lightbulb above your head. Geek is a quality that can be assigned a value, as all can, and that value is a good one. Geeks are the driving force behind the modern world.
-----------
R43. Most people. A value cannot be assigned by two guys saying 5 is 7 or 24 is 88. Just because most people like it does not mean that it is better.
-----------
R44. You have a BOP too, exactly the opposite of mine.
============================================================================

Con has:

Relied on the masses to formulate an opinion, thus removing individuality from his argument.
Not pointed out a trait that specifically makes Star Wars itself better, and not merely the fans or real-world impact.

Vote PRO.
wamba

Con

R1. -

Since for some reason my opponent has a mad desire to see numerical values assigned to this equation I will:

A hypothetical person assigns the followng numerical values for quality between star trek and star wars:

Star Wars - 99

Star Trek - 104

The Star Wars Film is 2 hours long.

The Star Trek season is 10 hours long

99/2 = 49.5

104 / 10 = 10.4

Equation proven.

With this equation, the average content per time is the method used to judge value. This is fair in comparing something that has a smaller amount of content.

R2-D2

My opponent is attempting to assert that everything in life can be broken down into numbers. Emotions and opinions can be broken down into numerical factors. I don't understand the purpose of this argument?


R3

Pro has faulted me for "using opinionated sources from someone other than yourself". I don't know what my opponent is expecting from a debate that is based on opinion.

"R32"

" If you have an IQ of 150 and are in Mensa and have a 4.0 score from college, then you are stupid because two guys say so?"

You are stupid if the entire population agrees that you are stupid. As society determines the definitions of words.

" You have yet to point out a scene from Star Wars that trumps Star Trek."

I do not have the burden of proof.

R42

My opponent concedes that Star Trek is geeky.

In 19th century, in North-America, the term geek referred to a freak in circus side-shows. In some cases, its performance included biting the head off a live chicken.

R43
"Most people. A value cannot be assigned by two guys saying 5 is 7 or 24 is 88. Just because most people like it does not mean that it is better."

This is actually the definition of "better"

" You have a BOP too, exactly the opposite of mine."

You claimed the BOP and you have it as you are the one making the claim.

Pro has admitted:
1. We are determining the average content to determine which is better
2. Star Trek Fans are geeky
3. Most people prefer Star Wars
4. He has he burden of proof
5. He forfeited a round
6. Called my argument inhuman/unoriginal

Pro has proved:

Nothing. That's right. Pro has not proven the resolution for which he self admittedly has the burden of proof.

For these reasons you should vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
2 people voted for a cyber-corpse.
Posted by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
Lol what were you looking for a bunch of youtube videos and commentaries?
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
This was rather disappointing. There was hardly any reference to the actual source material.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
Megan Fox and Olivia Munn - nice! There's Jennifer Aniston too http://www.leiasmetalbikini.com...

I like how you leave out these pictures: http://johnmichaelboling.com... http://www.elvistrooper.com...
Posted by Cobo 6 years ago
Cobo
dude I can't stand the old star trek.
We...must...do...somthing.
They were overly dramatic and nothing was even interesting about the series.
The battles in Star trek were so lame compared to star wars.
Plus-Death star equals no comparision
Posted by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
Star Gate . . .
Posted by Maikuru 6 years ago
Maikuru
Those pictures were hilarious but Trek > Wars any day.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
:O Star Wars hatarzz xD
Posted by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
Hahah, the Google search thing is classic. :D
Posted by unlockable 6 years ago
unlockable
Take it . . . like a champ!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
thegodhandwambaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tvellalott 6 years ago
tvellalott
thegodhandwambaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00